[¶1]
The mother of Anastasia M. appeals from a judgment of the
District Court (Springvale, Foster, J.) terminating
her parental rights to the child pursuant to 22 M.R.S. §
4055(1)(A)(1)(a) and (B)(2)(a), (b)(i)-(ii)
(2016).[1] She challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence to support both the court's finding of parental
unfitness and its determination that termination is in
Anastasia's best interest. Because the evidence supports
the court's factual findings and discretionary
determination, we affirm the judgment.

[¶2]
Based on competent evidence in the record, the court found by
clear and convincing evidence that the mother (1) is
unwilling or unable to protect the child from jeopardy within
a time reasonably calculated to meet her needs, and (2) is
unwilling or unable to take responsibility for her within
that timeframe. See 22 M.R.S. §
4055(1)(B)(2)(b)(i)-(ii). The court also found that
termination of the mother's parental rights is in
Anastasia's best interest. See 22 M.R.S. §
4055(1)(B)(2)(a). We review the factual findings supporting
the unfitness determination for clear error, see In re
Logan M.,2017 ME 23, ¶ 3, 155 A.3d 430, and apply
the same standard to the factual findings supporting the best
interest determination, although we review the court's
ultimate conclusion that termination is in the child's
best interest "for an abuse of discretion, viewing the
facts, and the weight to be given them, through the trial
court's lens, " and giving the court's judgment
"substantial deference, " In re Caleb M.,2017 ME 66, ¶ 33, 159 A.3d 345 (quotation marks
omitted).

[¶3]
The court based its determinations on the following findings
of fact:

One of the most difficult sources of jeopardy to rectify in
child protection proceedings is the risk posed by domestic
violence. In those cases, often one parent is the victim of
the other. The dynamics of domestic violence, the interplay
of power and control between the parties, and internal and
external pressures to reunify as a family can undermine and
delay reunification efforts. In a process where time frames
are tied to those reasonably] necessary to meet a child's
needs, that delay may be fatal to even good-faith efforts to
resolve jeopardy. [The mother] has an intimate knowledge of
domestic violence.

Throughout this case, and particularly at trial, [the mother]
minimized her substance abuse. Although initially confirming
in her testimony that the issues presented in this matter
were alcohol abuse and domestic violence, minutes later she
insisted that her own use of alcohol was an issue for a
"short period" of her life.... Although she agreed
at trial that she has a problem with alcohol, [the mother]
quickly added that she simply stays away from it.

But she doesn't. She tested positive for the presence of
alcohol in January, June and September of 2 016. The court
does not find [her] explanation, that the January and
September tests were attributable to her use of Nyquil,
believable.

Then there is the issue of misuse of other substances. [The
mother] has used marijuana regularly during this case. . . .
[She] mentioned that there had been discussion at one point
of using a prescribed benzodiazepine instead of the
marijuana. Before her prescriber was willing to do so,
however, [the mother] needed to go a month without using
marijuana; she was unable to do so. She was diagnosed with
cannabis use disorder, moderate. [The mother's
medication-management provider's] notes indicate she had
encouraged her client to stop using marijuana, to no avail.

[The mother] insists she has had no contact with [the father]
since early November of 2016As [the DHHS caseworker] noted at
trial, she has been told before by [the mother] that she and
[the father] have separated, only to discover that was not
the case or that the couple had reunited. As recently as
December of 2016, [the mother] received a text message from
[the father] with a picture of Anastasia. She admitted to [a
visit supervisor] that she and [the father] continued to
communicate by telephone, although she did not share that
information with [the caseworker].

When asked what it would take for her to resolve the issue of
domestic violence in her relationship, [the mother] responded
it would require ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.